Re: National tournament format

[uuuno@nywork2.undp.org (Unitarian Universalist UN Office)]

I support Bill and Steve's call for revisions in the tournament format.
While I don't beleive that a team being 7-1 or 8-0 at Nationals means that
they are inherently superior to a team that went 5-3, I do believe that
moving away from single elimination is an excellent idea.  Can we get some
feedback from NEDa folks or others who express dissatisfaction with the
current format?  As always, my concern is that the CEDA-L community although
growing doesn't fully represent a cross-section of opinions.  Some quick
thoughts about the general principles and a couple of stumbling blocks
beyond the timeframe considerations and side constraint issues already
posted.  (1) Keep the 8 prelim rounds--When we get down to the brass tacks
of it, some may want to cut down on prelims to implement this system.  We
must remember that there are different reasons for coming to Nationals other
than winning.  Some schools view nationals as an end of year conference that
they attend as members for the camaderie, others use nationals as a building
block for their program hoping for a few key wins and experiences, I have in
the pas used nationals to assist in training new debaters by letting them
see what to strive for.  The more rounds, the greater the contact and these
goals are just as legitimate (perhaps more so) than intending to win since
only one team will accomplish that feat.  (2) Diversity/competition
friction--we are lying to ourselves if we thnk that changes in format will
ease the tension here.  When Biza and Sean were down 2 rounds and had to
hit, I don't think they were excited last year and I doubt saying "oh goody,
we're not eliminated yet because we have to lose four" would make them feel
better about their records, nats or judges' decisions.  Debaters don't like
to lose, like to lose less for what they consider to be the WRONG reasons,
like to less to the WRONG teams and like to lose least to the WRONG teams
for the WRONG reasons.  Until we as a community move to legitimate
alternative approaches to debate (no people I don't mean critiques), some
people will feel left out, turned off by the process or will actually be
excluded from the CEDA community. I'll start a separate thread and elaborate
on this subject but you get the basic drift.  (3) What's wrong with byes--if
we became serious about a new system and the problems of side constraints
arose, I'd be happy with byes for the top teams especially since it's the
early departure of top teams that is referred to as a justification.  An 8-0
team is rewarded with an easy elim round schedule ( based on record and
points), the new reward of a pass is, for the most part equivalent. (4)is
there a value to panel balancing--it was my understanding that CEDA viewed
diverse, supposedly wacky panels as useful, because Nats forced the best
team to prove it in a more universal setting.  MPS moves us away from that
theory and recognizes the substantial amount of work that debaters put into
their careers.  Would this format aim to eliminate panel balancing and
blanket certain perspectives as wrongs to be controlled for (by adding a 4th
loss).  i'm not sure which way I lean but it is a stumbling blck that should
be considered.  That's it on format, I hope this thread picks up momentum.

Peace & Justice,

Will Baker
IMPACT Coalition
DOF-Queens College

"Take the Browns and the points this weekend"

---

• Prev by Date: The Critique Example: Rejoinder to Jim Hanson
• Next by Date: the reward system
• Prev by thread: The Critique Example: Rejoinder to Jim Hanson
• Next by thread: the reward system
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page